This is a projection.

No, the expected level of rise was a projection. The reality is that the water is rising faster than the projections.

This is what already happened

Sorry. As much as you people want to deny the climate change, it IS happening. There have been no lower temperatures in the last decade. The evidence, recordings, and facts show an increase that is speeding up.

The USGS points out the main areas of concern are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Increase of ocean levels from the melting of all other sources pale in comparison (half a meter vs 80 meters)

Today Greenland's ice is melting 3 times fas...

This is a projection.

No, the expected level of rise was a projection. The reality is that the water is rising faster than the projections.

This is what already happened

Sorry. As much as you people want to deny the climate change, it IS happening. There have been no lower temperatures in the last decade. The evidence, recordings, and facts show an increase that is speeding up.

The USGS points out the main areas of concern are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Increase of ocean levels from the melting of all other sources pale in comparison (half a meter vs 80 meters)

Today Greenland's ice is melting 3 times faster than only 5 years ago. You can see it visually here.

How you people can keep a straight face while saying we've been cooling for the last decade is beyond me. Last years global temperatures tied as the 8th warmest on record. And that's the coolest year since 2000 with 2007 tieing 1998 as the hottest global average temperature since 1880.

8 of the hottest years have come since 1998 and 14 of the hottest have come since 1990. There has been no 10 year cooling trend, there has been a 30 year heating trend.

But I can see how stuff like facts, evidence, records, raising sea levels, shrinking ice masses and pesky imagery can be inconvenient to some people.

essentially the problem faced by those denying the evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

I have to repeat what I just wrote: It is pointlessly to argue with people who cannot keep logic in their arguments. Your way of discussion is still demagogic, which is why you "spin these wheels over and over but the same result comes out".

I never denied evidence of anthropogenic climate change, as you claims. You could find a number of my clips on anthropogenic heat islands. Anthropogenic climate change over vast urban territories is too apparent to claim the opposite. And causes for the change are studied well enough: direct heat releases, change in hydrology and hydrogeology, cha...

essentially the problem faced by those denying the evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

I have to repeat what I just wrote: It is pointlessly to argue with people who cannot keep logic in their arguments. Your way of discussion is still demagogic, which is why you "spin these wheels over and over but the same result comes out".

I never denied evidence of anthropogenic climate change, as you claims. You could find a number of my clips on anthropogenic heat islands. Anthropogenic climate change over vast urban territories is too apparent to claim the opposite. And causes for the change are studied well enough: direct heat releases, change in hydrology and hydrogeology, change in albedo and wind modes, and various side effects of the above.
What is still unknown and/or failed to be proven is anthropogenic CO2-induced global warming. which is not the same as anthropogenic climate change as you should at long last make out.

amgumen, I did not name you, I did not direct that at you. It is a positive element that you recognize the potential of anthropogenic effects on the climate system. There are still some that cannot accept that. I have not followed your posts closely so I do not know "where you stand" within the labyrinth of alternative theories of those calling themselves climate skeptics.
That said I have never said, never, that the CO2 alone theory is proven beyond doubt (in fact it is held now in climate studies that present warming is _not_ greenhouse gases alone). I have said that the balance of evidence suggests that most warming is attributable to greenhouse gases. I too have my problems with the...

amgumen, I did not name you, I did not direct that at you. It is a positive element that you recognize the potential of anthropogenic effects on the climate system. There are still some that cannot accept that. I have not followed your posts closely so I do not know "where you stand" within the labyrinth of alternative theories of those calling themselves climate skeptics.
That said I have never said, never, that the CO2 alone theory is proven beyond doubt (in fact it is held now in climate studies that present warming is _not_ greenhouse gases alone). I have said that the balance of evidence suggests that most warming is attributable to greenhouse gases. I too have my problems with the theory and am always open to suggestions of additional drivers of the climate system. But so far I see most "skeptics" (>95%) simply hang their hat on whatever is conveniently placed in front of them that seems even remotely plausible so as to excuse greenhouse gases (GHGs) all together. Once again, the balance of the evidence suggest GHGs as the culprit of the majority of the warming. It is good to explore alternative theories - particularly now as GHG theory takes deeper root - but that does not change the facts as we know them now.

what do you think the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is at present

The impact on global climate is next to zero in comparison with interplanetary and cosmic forces that still drive (and have always driven) the climate. That is just consistent with a small content of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with the water vapor amount. Also, so far, all the empirical attempts failed to reveal discernible GH-effect of enhanced CO2 in temperature.

I think anyone who has followed this subject online to any depth as seen plenty of them

It makes me think that you never try to understand their arguments. But again, this anthropogenic impact too small to consider it at the ...

what do you think the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is at present

The impact on global climate is next to zero in comparison with interplanetary and cosmic forces that still drive (and have always driven) the climate. That is just consistent with a small content of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with the water vapor amount. Also, so far, all the empirical attempts failed to reveal discernible GH-effect of enhanced CO2 in temperature.

I think anyone who has followed this subject online to any depth as seen plenty of them

It makes me think that you never try to understand their arguments. But again, this anthropogenic impact too small to consider it at the global scale as a culprit of global warming. Sun and ocean did not lose their power under industrial progress. Nature forces still define industrial progress, not the other way about.